Russian Attack Subs in the Gulf of Mexico Undetected(freebeacon.com)
freebeacon.com
Russian Attack Subs in the Gulf of Mexico Undetected
http://freebeacon.com/silent-running/
7 comments
I do not understand the motivation of announcing this.
First, it was clearly detected, however they claim it was not early enough. Regardless, it sends a message to Russia that they know of their activities.
Second, I doubt the veracity of this claim - what is the benefit, besides political, of this announcement? My hypothesis is that a sonar array heard the sub entering the gulf, and it was treated as a military exercise to try detecting it using passive measures - i.e. to assess our capabilities of detecting the new type of submarine, or to study it by having it trailed. If the Pentagon felt that there was actually a threat, I think that they would conduct some unannounced "war game" with active sonar in the gulf to locate the sub more quickly.
Regardless, this sends the message that we are not completely oblivious, like saying "We don't know whether Putin put creamer in the coffee he had this morning at 7:38 am in this specific presidential bunker."
First, it was clearly detected, however they claim it was not early enough. Regardless, it sends a message to Russia that they know of their activities.
Second, I doubt the veracity of this claim - what is the benefit, besides political, of this announcement? My hypothesis is that a sonar array heard the sub entering the gulf, and it was treated as a military exercise to try detecting it using passive measures - i.e. to assess our capabilities of detecting the new type of submarine, or to study it by having it trailed. If the Pentagon felt that there was actually a threat, I think that they would conduct some unannounced "war game" with active sonar in the gulf to locate the sub more quickly.
Regardless, this sends the message that we are not completely oblivious, like saying "We don't know whether Putin put creamer in the coffee he had this morning at 7:38 am in this specific presidential bunker."
The purpose of the announcement is to try to save funding for naval weapons systems as the budget priorities continue to shift away from cold war strategic nuclear weapons systems. This is the sort of information which is only made public for political purposes, and the liberal references to President Obama ignore the fact that Congress establishes the budget and that priorities within the defense budget tend to be established based upon the advice of experienced personnel at the Pentagon and within the civilian intelligence agencies.
'“The Akula was built for one reason and one reason only: To kill U.S. Navy ballistic missile submarines and their crews,” said a second U.S. official.'
Yes, that may be why the Akula-class sub was designed - but to imply that that's what this particular sub, on this particular mission, was attempting, is a bit disingenuous.
Yes, that may be why the Akula-class sub was designed - but to imply that that's what this particular sub, on this particular mission, was attempting, is a bit disingenuous.
I have no idea why such a rather skewed bit of jingoistic pabulum made it up the HN pages. That isn't just a jab, the quality of the writing, its tenor, and its loaded (apparent) agenda seem wildly out of step with HN.
It must be terrifying to read articles like this (written for a domestic political purpose: preserving and expanding Navy funding) in a foreign newspaper, if you don't have the right context.
I assume Russian publications say exactly the same things whenever US forces conduct exercises nearby.
I assume Russian publications say exactly the same things whenever US forces conduct exercises nearby.
I have never seen publication about the same things in Russian press.
If it makes anyone feel any better this article is getting pilloried even by actual U.S. submariners:
http://bubbleheads.blogspot.com/2012/08/not-everything-you-r...
http://bubbleheads.blogspot.com/2012/08/not-everything-you-r...
FYI, that isn't a newspaper, it's published by a right-wing lobbying group.
Sure. Patrolling where potential or actual adversaries don't want attack submarines patrolling is what attack submarines do. The ocean is big and the Russians have many decades experience evading US anti-submarine technology.
The article appears to have some sort of political agenda. Florida sits between the Gulf of Mexico and Georgia's coast and the primary mission of antisubmarine aircraft is to protect capital ships, e.g. Aircraft carrier battle groups, placing air assets over a ballistic missile submarine would tend to reveal its location.